In Mrs EM Ramsay v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 14 May) a married woman (R) had acquired a large house in Belfast which was divided into flats and let to tenants. In 2004 she transferred the house to a company. She claimed relief under TCGA 1992 s 162. Following an enquiry HMRC issued a ruling that no relief was due on the grounds that the property was an investment and was not a business. The Upper Tribunal allowed R’s appeal (reversing the FTT decision). Judge Berner held that the activity which R had undertaken in respect of the property outweighed ‘what might normally be expected to be carried out by a mere passive investor’ and was sufficient in nature and extent to amount to a business for the purpose of TCGA 1992 s 162.
In Mrs EM Ramsay v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 14 May) a married woman (R) had acquired a large house in Belfast which was divided into flats and let to tenants. In 2004 she transferred the house to a company. She claimed relief under TCGA 1992 s 162. Following an enquiry HMRC issued a ruling that no relief was due on the grounds that the property was an investment and was not a business. The Upper Tribunal allowed R’s appeal (reversing the FTT decision). Judge Berner held that the activity which R had undertaken in respect of the property outweighed ‘what might normally be expected to be carried out by a mere passive investor’ and was sufficient in nature and extent to amount to a business for the purpose of TCGA 1992 s 162.
